If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

HB4NOW posted
"Then you have Keith telling the court what a pain Layla was, and Rich saying he didn't even see the dog that night. Where was Rich? Wouldn't that be important to know? All of these people were supposed to be in the kitchen, and yet none of them can agree on when, or what Damon was doing."

..."criticized the van Dams on the air for "not being honest" about "what really occurred" the night their daughter disappeared."

...Q. SHE ALSO TOLD YOU THAT BARBARA, ONE OF HER COMPANIONS, DID NOT COME DOWN UNTIL IT WAS TIME TO LEAVE, DIDN'T SHE?
A. YES.
(Anybody interested in Barb's version of that night?)

...Q: HOW DID THE GET-TOGETHER COME TO AN END THERE AT THE HOUSE?
A: WELL, IT WAS LATE. I THINK EVERYBODY WAS IN A PRETTY SOMBER AND TIRED-LIKE MOOD. AND IT JUST BROKE UP. WE ATE, AND EVERYBODY DECIDED TO LEAVE.

...Q: WHO ALL WAS THERE EATING THE PIZZA?
A: DAMON, MYSELF, RICH, BRENDA, BARBARA, DENISE. I DON'T KNOW IF SHE ATE PIZZA, THOUGH.
(Cut...line please.)

Q: DO YOU RECALL ANYTHING ABOUT AN ALARM LIGHT?
A: NO, I DO NOT.

..."How about the van dam’s He was down the street for 2 hours on the night of the kidnapping having sex with a neighbors wife - Her husband called & told King Stahlman.
They are swingers & druggies. They didn’t even check on their children that night."

"...he could have been like every other media outlet that knows the connection between the lifestyle and the missing child and kept his mouth shut to stay safe, but is that really the right thing to do?

He decided no, since there are two kids still in that house."

..."The defense is also unable to establish a motive for an unknown, unnamed swinger" to kidnap, kill, and then dump a nude seven-year-old girl along the side of the road."

SAN DIEGO, Feb. 13 (UPI) -- Though police Wednesday
>said they were losing hope of finding Danielle van Dam
>alive, the investigation into the 7-year-old San Diego
>girl's disappearance almost two weeks ago continued moving
>forward with the discovery of a possible clue linked to the
>prime suspect in the case.
(Why was homicide involved if there wasn't a body? What suggested this was more than just a kidnapping? Blood? Pajamas? Who took Danielle/Danielle's body and where was she taken for two weeks?
Started with patrol officers
Escalated to Captains, assistant chiefs, special investigations
Reduced to Lieutenants - all in the same day???? Sounds as if the disappearance was of interest to the brass from Friday night until Saturday night and then they lost interest? Lost interest in what? With nothing to go on, why would all of these top officials be at the scene of a missing person? Why didn't captain Nancy Goodrich and Detective Jerry van Wey follow this thing through. How many times did the ball get passed? Way too many!! Rational think and common sense go a long way in life.)

Comment

First we know that he is smart. He holds several patents and is an engineer. He has no history of deviant nor criminal behavior. So one of two things is true. Either he waited until the ripe old age of 50 to become a deviant and a murderer, or he has been that for a long time, but he is so clever and so good that he has never been caught or even suspected until now. So it is probably safe to assume he is not a total idiot. Let's keep that in mind.

Now first the motive. The article in the Union on Saturday said a San Diego detective said it was always about sex. And we are off and running.

So now on that Friday night, Feb 1, DW goes home around 10:30 pm. At this point he is going over to get Danielle for the purpose of sex. Either this is a spur of the moment decision or he has been planning it for some time. OK, again assuming he is not an idiot, he waits for the lights to go off in Danielle's house. He surely takes a flashlight, perhaps some burglary tools and something to subdue Danielle with, since when she wakes up, she will very likely resist and make noise, waking up one or more of the other 3 people in the house.

Now something else we can conclude about DW. He has really big brass ba&&s! He is going to go into a house occupied by 3 children and their father and a dog, any of which might hear him, yell and wake up the father.
(What if the father was down the streets for a couple of hours the night of the abduction?
What if the dog was locked in the bedroom with it's bed for a couple of hours while the abduction was taking place?)

In that case DW will at least be recognized and then he is screwed. Police, embarrassment, illegal entry, the whole neighborhood will find out, jail time and on and on. He is going into a house that he has not been in before and he is going to go upstairs in the dark to get a seven year old girl out of bed, and carry her to his house without waking anyone and, take a chance that the dog won't care. He is going to do this, all the while knowing that the mother could come home any minute and he would be caught for sure that way too. Remember, he is not an idiot, or is he?

Then after he carries her out of the house, he has to go past another house and across a street to get to his house. If anyone in the neighborhood who happens to be driving home, they will surely see him. And again, if the mother comes home, which she is expected to do, at that particular time she will surely see him as well. Any of these likely occurrences happen and it is all over for DW. Still he presses forward. All the while, carrying not only Danielle, but his flashlight, the burglary tools and what ever he used to subdue Danielle with so she couldn't make any noise. (drugs, duct tape, etc.)

Now back up. When he gets to Danielle's house he finds the back door closed but not locked. If the VD's are like most homes with security systems, they most likely have one of those signs warning potential criminals and hopefully deterring them from entering. Surely DW saw such a sign, and he must assume that if he opens the sliding glass door, the alarm will go off if it is set.
He would have no idea whether or not it was set. But what the hell, he decides to take a chance and open the door anyway. Just feeling lucky, huh? Are we sure he is not an idiot or just has a death wish. I wonder what he planned to do if the door had been locked?

OK, we know from the wonderful reporting in the Union, that generally pedophile are not killers, but on the whole, only kill when the child threatens to expose him. Well in this case he has to start out a killer, because there is no other way for him to go through with it without being exposed. He has to plan to kill her from the get go.

So now he manages to get her to his house without being detected. He must keep the lights out. Why? Because he knows that any minute the mother will arrive home. And being a good normal mother, she will check on her young children before she goes to bed. And when this happens, she will discover Danielle missing and call the police, who will come out, search the neighborhood, and surely knock on any doors of any house in the neighborhood that has a light on. Can you picture DW talking to the police at the front door, while Danielle jumps up and down in the background with her hands and feet bound and duck tape across her mouth? Of course he takes the chance that the police will not bring dogs which would surely pick up her or his fresh scent and the trail from her house to his regardless if a light is on or not. And then they would want to search his house that night.

Stevon V
(This is a fascinating scenario/review by a Union Trib poster. Several interesting points)

Comment

U/T:Choi said they didn't notice any blood on the clothing or bedding, and that Westerfield didn't ask for any stains to be removed.

Soriano:
Q. Can you please tell me the date that it was checked into the evidence locker that you referred to?
A. 2-11-02. (Monday)

Q. Then when was it released again?
A. It was re-opened again on 2-12-02. (Tuesday)

Q. By whom?
A. By myself.

Q. Anybody else present?
A. No.

Q. When was it resealed subsequent to 2-12-02, (Tuesday) if at all?
A. Yes. It was resealed back at the evidence evaluation locker 2-12-02.(Tuesday)

Q. Then where did it go, or did it say in the evidence locker from 2-12 until 3-6?
A. No. The extra large brown paper bag was then opened on 2-13-02, (Wednesday) and item 94-D, the jacket, was examined.

Q. Was it resealed or was it on the 13th (Wednesday) then of February that you cut out the portions of the jacket to which you referred on direct examination?
A. On 2-13-02 (Wednesday) I did cut those.

...Julie Mills confirms:

Q: HOW ABOUT THIS. DID IT HAVE ANY BLOOD ON IT?
A: I DON'T REMEMBER. I DON'T.

Q: IF IT WOULD HAVE HAD BLOOD ON IT, YOU WOULD HAVE REMEMBERED, WOULDN'T YOU?
A: OH, YES.

Q: IF ANY OF THE ITEMS HAD BLOOD ON IT, YOU WOULD HAVE SPOTTED IT, WOULDN'T YOU?
A: YES.

Comment

Q. How did that information come about from Mr. Westerfield?
A It was during the part of the conversation where we were talking about him being at Dad's Bar and running into Brenda van Dam.

And he mentioned that he didn't hang out with her but that he had had a short conversation with her. And I asked him what that conversation was about.

And he told me that she had told him that her daughter had some sort of father/daughter event coming up later in the week and that she had bought either a blouse or a dress or something for her daughter and that she had mentioned to him that her husband wasn't really excited about his little girl growing up.

And then he kind of paused a second, and then he said -- he kind of looked around, and he said I could have swore she said that she had a baby sitter. I didn't realize her husband was watching the kids.-Testimony from Detective Johnny Keene

Comment

TALLAHASSEE -- Under a law signed by Gov. Charlie Crist on Tuesday, the DNA of any person accused of a felony in Florida will be added to a state database.
(Guilty until proven innocent. What's wrong with this dictatorship?)

With Crist's signature, Florida became the 20th state to require police to take a DNA sample, such as a mouth swab, from everyone charged with a felony.

The state will hold onto that sample even if the felony charge is dismissed. Current law allows taking a DNA sample only after conviction of a felony or specified misdemeanors.
(Nice to have a database of innocent people.)

Comment

Q WHAT ARE THOSE ITEMS?
A 108 IS THE HAIR THAT WAS COLLECTED BY THE MEDICAL EXAMINER FROM DANIELLE DURING AUTOPSY. AND I BELIEVE IT'S 115 IS DEBRIS THAT WAS COLLECTED FROM BELOW HER BODY AT THE ACTUAL CRIME SCENE.

Q THAT'S ONE FIBER EACH FOR ITEMS NUMBER 108 AND 115?
A YES.

...MR. BOYCE: THEY ARE FROM THE 4TH AND THE 5TH, AND THEY SHOW THE OFFICERS GOING IN AND OUT OF THE HOME. SOME OF THE OFFICERS AREN'T WEARING GLOVES. IT GOES TO CONTAMINATION OF THE CRIME SCENE.
(Was there a reason none of the video tapes of anything were shown to the jury? People talk about what's on the tapes, but isn't there something called "best evidence" or best "created" evidence?)

Comment

Item 125 - Oral swabs
Item 126 - Vaginal swabs
Item 127 - Rectal swabs
(Where is the evidence of sexual assault. If the motive was sexual in nature, the evidence didn't support that theory. Not to say that it didn't happen, just no evidence to prove it happened. Speculation without proof.)

Item 169 (the hair from Dehesa) - THE SAME HAIR THAT WE'VE HEARD TESTIMONY ABOUT FROM THE ARMPIT AREA?
A. IT'S A DIFFERENT HAIR.
A. AFTER IT WAS ANALYZED, IT WAS PACKAGED WITH OTHER TRACE EVIDENCE COLLECTED AS ITEM T. E.-J. S.5.

Q. ALL RIGHT. I'D LIKE TO TURN YOUR ATTENTION NOW TO AN ITEM LABELED T. E.-J. S. 4 THAT I BELIEVE WAS LABELED IN YOUR LABORATORY SEPARATELY THREE DIFFERENT ITEMS WITHIN THAT GROUP, NUMBERS 27, 28 AND 29; IS THAT CORRECT?
A. THAT IS CORRECT.

Q. DID THAT CONSIST OF WHAT WERE IDENTIFIED AS SCRAPINGS FROM THE RIGHT FINGERNAILS OF DANIELLE VAN DAM?
A. ITEM 28 IS DESCRIBED AS AN ENVELOPE CONTAINING SCRAPINGS COLLECTED FROM THE RIGHT FINGERNAILS.
(Can't find much information about ITEM T. E.-J. S.5)

Comment

Mudd:
“Well, frankly, I don't see this as causing a problem for either side because there's no way -- well, I'm not going to comment on all of the evidence that indicates that she was still alive”

"On February 15, 2002 at about 1600 hours Brenda van Dam received a telephone call from an unknown male. The unidentified male asked Brenda van Dam if she wanted her daughter back. The unidentified male stated Danielle had been abused but was alive."

Q TO DO THE MAXIMUM, THOUGH, YOU WOULD HAVE TO KNOW WHERE THE BODY WAS UP 'TIL THAT POINT IT WAS KILLED AT THE SCENE, CORRECT?
A WELL, IF THE BODY WAS KILLED AT THE SCENE, THEN THE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM WOULD BE THE SAME TIME.

Q AND YOU ARE ASSUMING FOR YOUR TESTIMONY HERE THAT THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED?
A YES, I AM.

Crime scene, recovery scene? Taste great, less filling.

Q AND CAN YOU TELL US HOW DID YOUR INVOLVEMENT COME, COME TO PASS?
A I WAS CONTACTED THE MORNING OF THE 28TH OF FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR TO SEE WHAT MY AVAILABILITY WAS TO ATTEND AUTOPSY AND LATER ON TO GO TO THE CRIME SCENEOR THE SCENE WHERE THE BODY WAS RECOVERED TO INVESTIGATE THAT AREA FOR INSECT ACTIVITY.

...Q AND THEN I THINK YOU JUST TOLD ME THAT YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO THE CRIME SCENEOR THE RECOVERY SCENE. IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.

...THE SCIENCE, THE SCIENCE IS GOING TO COME TO MR. WESTERFIELD'S RESCUE, BECAUSE THE CRIME SCENE -- I'M SORRY, THE RECOVERY SITE, LAW ENFORCEMENT COLLECTED UP AS MUCH AS IT COULD, AND YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR THE RESULTS. AND WHEN YOU HEAR THOSE RESULTS, YOU'RE GOING TO BE CONVINCED BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE, IMPOSSIBLE FOR DAVID WESTERFIELD TO HAVE DUMPED DANIELLE VAN DAM IN THAT LOCATION. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW BEYOND DOUBT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO HAVE PLACED HER THERE. THEIR EVIDENCE.

...Q: OKAY. AND WITHOUT MY PUTTING ANYTHING ON THE BOARD, AT THE CRIME -- AT THE RECOVERY SCENE, YOU NOTED THAT THERE WAS PARTICULAR VEGETATION, IS THAT RIGHT, AT THE RECOVERY SCENE?
A: THAT I SAW VEGETATION THERE?

...Q. ALL RIGHT. AND NOW I'D LIKE TO TAKE YOUR ATTENTION TO THE DATE OF FEBRUARY 27TH OF THIS YEAR, AND ASK IF AS PART OF THIS CASE YOU WERE ASKED TO REPORT TO A BODY RECOVERY SCENE ON DEHESA ROAD.
A. YES, I WAS.

...Q: MISS SHEN, I'LL ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN. AS FAR AS THE LOCATION OF THAT FIBER IN THE HAIR, TANGLED IN THE NECKLACE, IS THERE ANY SIGNIFICANCE TO ITS LOCATION AS OPPOSED TO IT BEING, FOR EXAMPLE, IN ANOTHER LOCATION ON THE NECKLACE?
A: THE SIGNIFICANCE I THINK OF THE FIBER TANGLED IN THE HAIR IS THAT BECAUSE IT WAS KNOTTED IN THE HAIR AND BECAUSE THE HAIR WAS KNOTTED IN THE NECKLACE AND BECAUSE THE FIBER IS COVERED IN DEBRIS AND THE HAIR AND THE NECKLACE ARE COVERED IN A SIMILAR DEBRIS, IT APPEARS THAT THE FIBER AND THE HAIR WERE ON THE BODY FROM THE TIME THAT IT WAS PLACED WHERE IT WAS FOUND VERSUS HAVING BEEN PLACED ON THE BODY AT SOME LATER TIME.
(Crime sceneorrecovery scene?
The evidence suggests Danielle was alive when she left home, and was living up until the 15th of February or so. Yet another amazing coincidence to this tragedy. How many items of evidence that point to somebody besides Westerfield are being ignored? This is the story YOU presented to the public. This is the evidence YOU presented to the jury.
I'm trying to figure out how YOU came to the conclusions YOU did.

Was the condom wrapper found undernath Danielle's body a "calling card" from her killer or was it yet another coincidence her body came to rest with a condom wrapper below it and no purged fluids. Wonder what an entomologist would say if he came across that scenario in the course of business?)

Comment

...Q WHAT WAS FOUND UNDERNEATH THIS BODY?
A ACCORDING TO DAVID FAULKNER, THERE WAS NO FLUIDS AND NO SMELL.

Q WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
A WELL, IT COULD MEAN THAT THE BODY DRIED OUT QUITE QUICKLY AND THAT THE FLUIDS THAT THE MAGGOTS, THE MAGGOTS THAT WERE IN THE MAGGOT MASS GENERATING WERE EVAPORATING SO FAST DUE TO THIS SANTA ANA WIND THAT THEY MAYBE DIDN'T REACH THE SOIL.

Q WOULDN'T IT ALSO MEAN THAT THE BODY HAD MUMMIFIED TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT THE ONLY THING RECEPTIVE TO THE MAGGOTS WAS AFTER THE ANIMALS HAD GOTTEN INTO THE INSIDES?
A IF IT HAD MUMMIFIED THAT MUCH, WE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD THAT. WE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD THE COLONIZATION.
(Sounds as if the colonization of the insects disproves the rapid mummification theory.)

Q ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE TERM BODY SILHOUETTE?
A IF THAT'S REFERRING TO THE OUTLINE OF THE FLUIDS, THE PURGED FLUIDS OR LEACHING FLUIDS, THEN I ASSUME THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.

Q THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
A RIGHT.

Q IF THAT ISN'T THERE, THAT'S ANOTHER FACTOR THAT THIS BODY WAS EXPOSED TO DRY, HOT CONDITIONS, CORRECT?
A IT COULD BE.

Q WHAT ELSE COULD IT BE?
A IT COULD BE THE BODY WASN'T THERE AT THAT LOCATION THE WHOLE TIME.

"something that may have prevented the situation from being as expected from what i found."
(I expected a new bike for Christmas and found a lump of coal under the tree? What happened?)

...New witness:
Q. WHAT WAS FOUND UNDERNEATH THIS BODY?
A. A condom wrapper?.

Comment

Q. And as a result of that concern that you had, did you speak to anybody in particular about whether or not there was any evidence that the body had ever been excluded from the insects?
A. I contacted the san diego police department forensic investigators to ask about other aspects of the case which might have included the body being covered, the body being moved from one place to another within that same general area, something that may have prevented the situation from being as expected from what i found.

q. And in fact you were told the body hadn't been covered, there was no evidence of that, is that right?

Mr. Dusek: Objection. hearsay.

The court: Overruled. You may answer.

The witness: no one had any evidence that the conditions the body were found were other than what i was informed of because the body was not covered.

By mr. Feldman:
Q. Did anyone ever tell you that the body had been moved?
A. No.

Q. Did you ever find any evidence that the body had been moved?
A no.

Q. So, therefore, in the absence of body being moved, in the absence of the body being covered, your science is telling you the body's earliest availability is the 16th of february, 2002.
A. For the fly larvae that were removed, analyzed, and evaluated.

Q. Were there other, any other insects that you found that -- and did these studies on or the evaluations on that would cause you to form the opinion that it was earlier?
A. There were a large number of beetles. They were all adult beetles that were found with the remains. And, again, an indication would be if conditions are favorable, that they would have deposited eggs and so eggs or in this case the larval stages which are termed grubs would have been found also on the body. But i was unable to recover any of the larval stages of the beetles from the remains.

Q. i'm sorry. What's the consequence of that? Now, if you would have found grubs on the body, that might have suggested to you your earlier calculation was off, but you didn't find any grubs, is that right?
A. it wouldn't have meant that the early calculation was off. That would still be correct for the flies that were on there. But what the beetles would have indicated that the body was attracted, attracted the beetles, and they tend to start depositing their eggs anywhere from two weeks onward during decomposition. And so when i didn't find any beetle larvae on the body, . . .

Q. so the absence of beetle larvae supported or supports the conclusion that the body was first available on or about the 16th to the 18th of february.
A. based on primarily the maggots.

Q. You discussed with law enforcement and mr. Dusek each of the issues you've discussed with the jury today?
A. Yes.

Comment

Sources tell NEWSWEEK that police twice felt confident enough in the past weeks to take their case against Westerfield to the San Diego District Attorney, who pressed for additional evidence.

Convinced that conclusive proof was forthcoming, the cops kept Westerfield under 24-hour surveillance.

"We wanted to be ready to make an arrest, no matter what time of day or night, as soon as we got the DNA results back," says Bejarano.
(Should have waited until the DNA came back from the evidence collected from the victim's bedroom before making an arrest, eh?
Imagine if the blood on the blanket didn't belong to Westerfield. What better piece of evidence to exclude Westerfield from the crime scene and crime?)

Comment

Did her body show signs of having been restrained? Duct tape or other adhesive on wrists and/or ankles?

Any sign that her hands/wrists/ankles were bound with rope or something else?

I would think that would be VERY important.

(The search warrants listed ropes, restraints, etc. by none were entered into evidence. I feel confident everything that could be IMAGINED was used as evidence. If they didn't have it, it was created, or however you want to say that.
I don't remember seeing any binding materials on the returns for the search warrants.
The gag order didn't happen until the court proceedings started.
If all else fails, blame it on decomposition.)